credit dude grows:
"I want to bring the DGC together and put some scientific evidence supporting or refuting the hypothesis that powdery mildew is systemic. The definition of systemic is pertaining to or affecting the body as a whole or involves multiple organs. For animals it typically means it has gotten into the blood stream as is able to then infect other parts of the body from within. If we are then applying this to cannabis, if it is said powdery mildew is systemic do we then mean it can infect other parts of the plant from within? All five main genera of powdery mildew of which 900 + species have been identified are obligate pathogens (podosphaera, erysiphe, leveillula, golovinomyces and oidium). Some are host specific and some are opportunist and will attempt to infect a variety of plants. All reproduce through the production of spores (conidia singular or conidiophores for a string of them) we actually see as the “powder” on the leaves. They have specialized cells called haustoria that are food absorbing projection that penetrate the epidermal cells of the plant. They absorb food through this haustoria and use the energy to create new hyphae that grow over the surface producing new conidia that do not require moisture to fruit and infect more tissue. There is also chasmothecia that are small pepper like specks that are formed and can survive without a suitable host. I would have to argue based upon the reproductive nature that only penetrating the epidermal layer of cells and then producing new spores for reproduction would mean the scourge of growing is in fact not systemic at all and can be unlike herpes as some put can be gotten rid of. The problem is that a single spore left after all the treatment in the world will still infect a plant that is not ready to defend itself through disrupting transcription within the pathogen (the typical defense of plants against powdery mildew attacks). I am open to any and all discussion that is science and research based. Peak into the 1000 Fungal Genome Project where we have learned evolutionary relationships through genome comparison of a variety of not only powdery but also downy mildew etc. On another note… with point mutations, deletions etc in the quickly mostly asexual reproduction of powdery could there be species of pm that has become systemic and can somehow move its spores within the plant? I feel like that is the only way PM could be considered systemic. It reproductive bodies have to be able to travel within the tissue of the plant to another spot within the plant like translocation of nutrients in order to be systemic. I would still argue that is highly unlikely and the infection is only in the epidermal layer or even if deeper spores don’t travel through the xylem or phloem with water a nutrients are able to. Thanks for everything from the crew. Hope we can shed some more light on this issue. "
"I want to bring the DGC together and put some scientific evidence supporting or refuting the hypothesis that powdery mildew is systemic. The definition of systemic is pertaining to or affecting the body as a whole or involves multiple organs. For animals it typically means it has gotten into the blood stream as is able to then infect other parts of the body from within. If we are then applying this to cannabis, if it is said powdery mildew is systemic do we then mean it can infect other parts of the plant from within? All five main genera of powdery mildew of which 900 + species have been identified are obligate pathogens (podosphaera, erysiphe, leveillula, golovinomyces and oidium). Some are host specific and some are opportunist and will attempt to infect a variety of plants. All reproduce through the production of spores (conidia singular or conidiophores for a string of them) we actually see as the “powder” on the leaves. They have specialized cells called haustoria that are food absorbing projection that penetrate the epidermal cells of the plant. They absorb food through this haustoria and use the energy to create new hyphae that grow over the surface producing new conidia that do not require moisture to fruit and infect more tissue. There is also chasmothecia that are small pepper like specks that are formed and can survive without a suitable host. I would have to argue based upon the reproductive nature that only penetrating the epidermal layer of cells and then producing new spores for reproduction would mean the scourge of growing is in fact not systemic at all and can be unlike herpes as some put can be gotten rid of. The problem is that a single spore left after all the treatment in the world will still infect a plant that is not ready to defend itself through disrupting transcription within the pathogen (the typical defense of plants against powdery mildew attacks). I am open to any and all discussion that is science and research based. Peak into the 1000 Fungal Genome Project where we have learned evolutionary relationships through genome comparison of a variety of not only powdery but also downy mildew etc. On another note… with point mutations, deletions etc in the quickly mostly asexual reproduction of powdery could there be species of pm that has become systemic and can somehow move its spores within the plant? I feel like that is the only way PM could be considered systemic. It reproductive bodies have to be able to travel within the tissue of the plant to another spot within the plant like translocation of nutrients in order to be systemic. I would still argue that is highly unlikely and the infection is only in the epidermal layer or even if deeper spores don’t travel through the xylem or phloem with water a nutrients are able to. Thanks for everything from the crew. Hope we can shed some more light on this issue. "